Career CFO vents her frustration over business, human capital, economics, social environment, culture, politics, and everything else; but always with a monetary twist

March 2015 posts

March 30, 2015

Do you know that there are people who devote their spare and even professional time to collecting mistakes and goofs made in movies, TV shows, etc.? There is a successful British website Moviemistakes.com (since 1996) whose creator has built himself an entertainment career and a money-making vehicle doing just that.

Specialists officially distinguish eight classes of mistakes, including ridiculous audio problems and crewvisibility. However, themost frequent ones are continuity errors (the yellow Porsche's side was smashed in the previous scene and then in the next one it's absolutely fine) and "revealing" mistakes that remind you it's not for real (Edward is seating under the bright sun during his honeymoon but his skin doesn't sparkle like "the skin of a killer" should).

I have to say, this type of bullshit is completely lost on me. I mean, how many times (and how intently) do you need to watch Commando to notice that thing about the car? And realism of Twilight? Pahlease! Unless I am watching Bergman, Fellini, Kubrick, Tarkovsky, Lee, or Noe, whose every shot is the result of conscious artistic effort, I swear, it's unlikely I will notice visual errors even if I absolutely love (or hate) the movie.

Plus, these mistakes are the consequences of poor production quality and low work standards, and my readers know very well that I expect that and discuss it all the time. Who the hell thinks that this prevailing trend of our lives doesn't apply to the entertainment industry? People are people everywhere. I don't even get surprised by plot holes anymore, even though it's impossible to ignore those. I'm like, "Oh, it doesn't tie well? Surprise, surprise!" You know how it is: the screenplays get nipped and tucked by everyone to such an extent that the story originators cannot even recognize their own creations anymore.

However, I feel differently about factual errors (an official class as well). I notice them all the time. You see, those don't come from producers, editors, the crew, and it's unlikely that actors ad lib them. No, they are products of sloppy writing. I guess I have different standards for writers than I do for everyone else: I get upset with idiotic mistakes made by screenwriters, journalists, novelists, as well as their research helpers and fact checkers. A writer's job is very hard - to construct a flawless plot is incredibly difficult. But to verify the correctness of some piece of information? That's a matter of care and respect for your audience. I take my time to watch or read your thing and you disrespect me? Fuck you!

Of course, different blunders create different levels of annoyance. I don't curse out loud (or at least, not anymore) about the eternal confusion of Chapter 11 and Chapter 7 bankruptcies. I got used to it. Someone always says how "the company has filed Chapter 11 and will be gone, like, tomorrow." Well, no: Chapter 11 means that the company plans to stay in business, already found funding, and is reorganizing itself. This is what Bloomingdale's (or rather the company that owns them - ah, never mind... ) successfully did back in 1991 and it is still operating, thank you very much. But if it were a Chapter 7 filing, then the company would probably be gone already. Of course, no David E. Kelley's show would allow an error like that, since he holds a J.D. degree from BU, but it is very prominent in many a police procedural.

Also pretty low on my scale of discontent are silly foreign-culture mistakes: Like giving a last name Petrovna, which is actually a patronymic and cannot possibly be a family name, to a Russian cyber-genius girl; or attributing a French chanson to the wrong chanteur who never sang it; or redrawing world borders by claiming a German town for Austria. Okay, I am an irritable person, so these things get me annoyed, especially because there are way too many of them. On the other hand, what else can I possibly expect from people who listen to Taylor Swift and Lorde? So, I grumble under my breath, as if I can telepathically correct these factual glitches, but that's about it. I wouldn't turn such bullshit into a blog post.

However, some facts are such a commonplace, they are so prominently a part of the collective consciousness that it is hard to imagine anybody having informational lapses about them.

Case in point: The episode 3.13 of CBS's contemporized take on the adventures of Sherlock Holmes, Elementary, revolves around a murder of a "debt collector." I probably can spend at least 10,000 words listing all factual errors that assaulted me during 40+ minutes of the episode, but this post is already running too long, so I will restrain myself and point out just a couple of things.

You know, how Conan Doyle famously attributed Holmes's success as a detective to his perfecting of the deductive reasoning (aka logical deduction)? Simply speaking, Sherlock starts with a broad premise and elaborately eliminates all possibilities until only one right conclusion remains.

The writers of the series tried to employ pretty much the same method: As soon as it is established that the victim was an attorney who lost his job at a big law firm and turned to debt collections as a source of his daily bread, the plot's deductive challenge is revealed: there are millions of suspects. According to the writers, every debtor in the victim's collection portfolio is a potential murderer and it's up to Holmes to find the proverbial needle.

You may think that this is a farce (hey, our life nowadays is a farce!), but no, this is a "serious" show! Then what about the materiality threshold? I mean, I know there are people who kill for less, but, seriously, what is the likelihood of someone in Nebraska coming to NYC to kill a collector for $10K? The size of the debts alone should've narrowed down the pool of suspects to a size of a soup bowl in a shorter time than it took Holmes to pin up all those endless lists of names on the wall.

Further on materiality: It is implicit that the debtor must've been severely threatened to go for a kill, right? But what's the big scare here? While larger debt recovery organizations employ or contract multiple lawyers pretty much in every state and therefore can litigate even small balances, it is impossible to imagine that one attorney can stretch himself over more than 20-30 cases at the same time.

All that is just common sense. Unfortunately, it is an unattainable commodity now. So, how about the technical side of the business that could've been easily researched? The reality is that no one can survive in the highly regulated asset-recovery industry without a decent collection software, expensive access to personal records database (such as Lexis Nexis), and on-demand automated call distribution solution (like LiveVox). You see, violations of collection rules and standards, including the timing and the language of calls, can be sufficient grounds for law suits. In fact, there are lawyers who specialize in suing collection agencies on behalf of debtors. Therefore, there is a necessity to digitally record all collection efforts for evidential reasons. Checking those records would've instantly limited the list of suspects even further - to only those potential murderers who's been actually contacted by the victim's firm.

My spirits were lifted a bit when Holmes correctly re-labeled the victim as a debt merchant, i.e. someone who buys, at a 95% discount, portfolios of consumer debts written off by financial institutions and makes money successfully collecting a small portion of them. My elation lasted exactly 2 seconds. You see, respectful writers who gave their viewing audience a modicum of intellectual credit would've left it at that: one has to be from Mars to be completely unaware of the concept.

But noooo! These hoodlums sent Holmes on a ranting explanation of the debt-trading plague's basics to... Watson. Most ridiculously, her scripted response to Holmes's briefing is that of bewilderment: "Really?"

Wait a minute! Wait a minute! Are you kidding me? Are you telling me that a sophisticated New Yorker, a former successful surgeon, and, at this point, a full-scope PI who lives and breathes research has never heard of sub-prime mortgages, multibillion-dollar bank write-offs, and consumer-debt securitization that led to 2009 global financial crisis and bailouts? Was she actually on an interstellar journey? Or were you, the writers, out to lunch?

Now, to connect the victim to the final suspect the writers had to create an unfathomable possibility of somebody being able to pluck out a specific bad debt portfolio containing a specific stale mortgage. Well, that would be like looking for a needle in a haystack for real! The delinquent debt industry is vast and sophisticated, with leaders such as SquareTwo Financial (owned by Collect America Holding) buying billion-dollar packages of charged-off receivables directly from financial institutions and distributing them for collections through their national franchises. After a time, uncollected accounts are further repackaged and resold with deeper discounts. To trace a single debt in this dark labyrinth would be absolutely impossible for the perp in question.

The part of this ignorant bullshit that turned out to be far more disturbing than the factual errors was the resolution of the case. At the end, Holmes deduces that the debt collector/debt merchant was killed because he realized what a "disgusting business" the collection of financial delinquencies was and tried to erase debtors' liabilities.

Note what the liberally confused writers found appalling: not the packaging of unrecoverable receivables as marketable instruments by opportunistic financial brokers; not the investment of people's savings and pensions into this imaginary "securities" by brainless money managers, but the straightforward effort of making consumers pay for goods, services, homes, etc. they bought and used. Hmm... Taking something out of a store and not paying for it - isn't it, like, shoplifting? Ordering something online and not paying for it - isn't it, like, mail fraud? Residing somewhere without paying for the space - isn't it, like, squatting?

I don't expect laymen to be fluent in the mayhem of American economics as it has been for the last 20 years. All I'm asking is a little awareness. Are all these people really this ignorant and stupid? It's too bad they don't read my blog. Four years ago (oh, my God!) in my post The Infinite Wisdom of Trey Parker and Matt Stone I was already referring the confused masses to South Park's episode Margaritaville (2009!!!) - the most genius breakdown of the financial crisis in popular culture. They are your colleagues, people! And they made it ELEMENTARY for you!

I'm just grateful that my knowledge of cryogenics, genetic re-breeding of extinct animals, cloning of rare plants, drone operations, and some other topics that feed (or are fed to) entertainment writers are only rudimentary. I am suspicious, but at least I can pretend that they may be represented correctly. But financial stuff? Culture stuff? I can't help myself there. I hear that doctors usually have conniptions when they are exposed to shows like ER, House M.D., etc. I totally understand: the idiotic errors - they are unbearable.

March 16, 2015

"Modern art is what happens when painters stop looking at girls and persuade themselves that they have a better idea."

John Ciardi

The Frustrated CFO's comment:I am sure we can all agree that nowadays John Ciardi's remark is applicable to all branches of art and visual media. The main reason why so much of the contemporary "art" is nothing more than gimmick-ridden market-trading commodity is because its creators are blinded by their own self-importance. Oh, why this picture? Because mad men like Don Draper over there, coincidentally reading John Ciardi's 1954 translation of Dante's Inferno, also belong to the slew of visual originators whose ideas of what things should look like reshaped and distorted the general public's perception of images, artistic or otherwise.

March 11, 2015

It got warmer now, but for a few weeks leading up to this one it was bitterly cold in NYC, with temperatures falling into single digits and wind pushing the chill effect below zero. And I don't really know if my fellow bundled-up New Yorkers noticed them, but I saw them all the time - the girls wearing flats on their bare feet.

Let's say you are walking to your office in Financial District. The iPhone displays 13 degrees air temperature and the ground, covered in snow, would likely register 5. More snow is falling from the sky. You keep your head down watching out for slippery spots and inadvertently see people's footwear.

There are plenty of toe-warming UGGs (actually a California brand, early on manufactured in Australia, now almost entirely in China), a variety of snow and rain boots (not as warm, but at least waterproof), leather boots, frozen high-tops. And once in a while you spot them - they are running to work too (no, they didn't just popped out for a second!) and all they have on their feet are tiny flats (it could be just my shocked perception, but it seems that it is always a pair of silver Tory Burches). They usually wear black leggings thus exposing their ankles and essentially most of their feet to the bitter, Siberian cold. Three times in the last 4 weeks I rode in the elevator with one of those girls.

I cannot say that I fervently keep up with the latest fashion trends, but I can guarantee that these girls are not making fashion statements - nobody is that painfully style-forward. The likely scenario is that protecting their feet from possible frostbites simply doesn't fit into their budgets. When they came from their hometowns to New York City (annual average temperature 55 degrees), they didn't expect (most people didn't) that it could be so cold here for 3-4 weeks in a row. And there is no way they can splurge on items that will be used for such a short time.

How could they? After their $1,300 portion of rent and utilities for the two-bedroom shared with another two roommates, cell phone bill, barely any food at all (even the cheapest of foodstuffs are expensive here), Metrocard, some H&M clothes to appear decent in the office, household supplies, and the minimum payment due on the Visa card used to buy the cheapest puffer coat on sale, their $3,250 a month after payroll deductions (from $60K annual salary) are gone pretty much as soon as they hit the bank account.

Meanwhile, the shortest and simplest pair of UGGs costs $155 and if you spent some time searching (or get lucky) you can find a pair of snow boots for $90. Well, if you buy something classic that never goes out of style this is a pretty good investment, since they may be useful next year and the year after. However, if you simply don't have that extra $100 or even $12 to cover the increase of the minimum payment on the credit card, you forgo the warmth and comfort. After all, it's only a few weeks a year.

I am looking at the almost naked feet and think that those flats are probably the only shoes she's got that are suitable for the fancy office (business attired only!) of a big company that hired her because of her hard-earned degree in marketing with 4.0 GPA. And so, she will run in them in severely cold conditions from her home to the subway and then to the office building... What for? I have no fucking clue.

March 09, 2015

"Sarcasm is usually the last refuge of modest and chaste-souled people when the privacy of their soul is coarsely and intrusively invaded."

F. M. Dostoyevsky

The Frustrated CFO Comment: As screwed up the world already was in the 19th century, it still retained some idealism, innocence, and purity of thought that is almost entirely destroyed in our post-post-modernist times. According to Fyodor Mikhailovich, then sarcasm was the last resort of a decent intellectual who couldn't take it anymore. Nowadays, practically everyone everywhere speak in sarcastic formulas. And maybe it is because people use sarcasm as a defense mechanism to shield their vulnerability, but I am more inclined to agree with one trustworthy social critic I personally know: She says that the pervasive sarcasm has replaced the last traces of genuineness the humanity kept shedding for the last 150 years. At this point, everything is so fake, sarcasm is the only manner of communication we are capable of employing. And that's why so frequently we have to reconfirm, "I meant what I said," especially if we are expressing something rare: gratitude, modesty, humility, appreciation.